The Voice of Public Citizen in Texas

Coal Moratorium Press Conference and Testimony Yesterday

March 25, 2009 by

Yesterday morning we held a press conference to highlight the importance of the proposed coal moratorium bill, SB 126, sponsored by State Sen. Rodney Ellis, and its companion bill in the house, HB 4384, sponsored by Rep. Allen Vaught.

SB 126 , which went into committee late Tuesday night, would put a temporary moratorium on authorizations for new coal-fired power plants that do not capture and sequester their carbon emissions. If all of Texas’ 12 proposed coal plants were built, they would emit an additional 77 million tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Top climate scientists, most notably James Hansen, have advocated for a coal moratorium as one of the top priorities to address climate change.

This legislation would also give Texas time to take a breath, see what federal carbon legislation will come down from Washington, and re-evaluate our energy plan. We expect carbon emissions to be given a price as a result of a federal climate change bill, and this would make the energy from coal considerably more expensive.

Environmentalists support these bills, but some feel they could be stronger. Both bills grant exceptions to facilities that capture and sequester some of the carbon dioxide they produce. Vaught’s bill mandates that a minimum of at least 60 percent of the carbon dioxide must be captured and sequestered in order for the exemption to apply. Ellis’ bill does not specify the amount.

“We definitely would support 100 percent reduction of carbon dioxide,” says Karen Hadden, director of Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition. “We should not be adding carbon dioxide to our air at this point in time. It’s too risky in terms of climate change. Companies can do it, and they should.”

Representatives from communities currently fighting coal plants were on hand to discuss how this legislation will protect their families from dangerous health effects such as asthma and increased autism rates and improve local air quality. It was really moving to hear community members telling their own stories of how proposed coal plants would affect their lives. If you’re interested in hearing their stories, check out the video feed from the press conference. Look for March 25, Press Conference: Senator Rodney Ellis. That’s us!

The story got picked up in a couple other media outlets. All the news that’s fit to link:

State Sen. Rodney Ellis and Rep. Allen Vaught File Bill to Stop New Coal-Fired Power Plants

AUSTIN – State legislators, environmental activists and local community members who would be affected by proposed coal-fired power plants met at the capitol this morning to call for a temporary moratorium on proposed coal plants. Halting the construction of proposed coal plants would help curb climate change, protect local communities from dangerous health impacts, and improve local air quality.

“The evidence is now abundantly clear: Climate change is already affecting Texans and impacts will only increase in severity if we fail to act quickly. Texas leads the nation in global warming gases. If we were our own country, Texas would rank eighth in the world among carbon emitters,” said Tom “Smitty” Smith, director of Public Citizen’s Texas office. “If all 12 of our proposed coal and pet-coke fired power plants were built, Texas would emit an additional 77 million tons of carbon dioxide. Capturing 90 percent of those emissions, which is feasible with current technologies, would significantly reduce the state’s carbon footprint and help fight global warming.”

Two bills have been introduced which would place a temporary moratorium on coal-fired power plants without carbon capture and sequestration: SB 126, by state Sen. Rodney Ellis, and HB 4384 by Rep. Allen Vaught.

In addition to combating climate change, the proposed legislation would also help protect public health. Coal-fired power plants release many dangerous pollutants such as sulfur dioxide, mercury and lead. Emissions from coal plants complicate diseases such as asthma, cardiac pulmonary disease and many other circulatory and respiratory conditions, and studies have shown a statistically significant link between mercury and increased autism rates. Considering these health effects, last year the Texas Medical Association recommended a moratorium on the approval of old technology coal-fired power plants.

“My main concern is the potential influence of emissions from these coal-fired plants on childhood development. Our children are our future and their health and well-being should not be compromised. Both mercury and lead cause irreversible mental and physical health problems in children,” said Robert M. Malina, a Bay City resident representing a group opposing the White Stallion Pet-coke Plant. “What’s more, elevated mortality from lung cancer and increased prevalence of asthma are associated with coal-fired power plants emitting sulfur dioxide, nitrous dioxide and particulate matter. Everyone living near these plants or within reach of prevailing winds will be subjected to these health risks.”

“The Las Brisas Power Plant, which is slated to be built in the Corpus Christi Bay and has no plans to sequester the 10.4 million tons of carbon dioxide it proposes to put into the atmosphere each year, will almost double the EPA regulated air pollutants in our city. Corpus Christi is already dealing with the environmental and health effects of being a refining town and this addition would likely push our county into non-attainment for ozone and sulfur dioxide,” said Roger Landress, representing the Clean Economy Coalition of Corpus Christi. “Living along the gulf, I’m also concerned by the sea level rise and increased storm surges associated with global warming. This plant would be built right inside the bay, and would likely be swept away within the next 50 years. It doesn’t make sense to be adding fuel to the fire like this.”

“In my community of Sweetwater, Tenaska has proposed to build a pulverized coal plant with carbon capture and sequestration that might capture 85 to 90 percent of carbon emitted from the smokestack but the company refuses to include language about this addition in their permit. Without something specific in their permit and without legislation to hold them accountable, there is no way to make sure they will keep their promise,” said Patricia Broadwell, with the Multi County Coalition of Sweetwater. “The Tenaska plant would also consume between 1 million and 10 million gallons of water a day in a semi-arid desert. Sweetwater frequently runs short of water as it is because we don’t have enough rain, and periods of drought will only increase as an effect of global warming. It doesn’t look like there will be enough water to go around for both the power plant and residents.”

With carbon legislation likely to come down the pipe from Washington by Thanksgiving, the cost of coal and carbon dioxide emissions is likely to increase significantly. Other states such as California, Idaho, Maine, Kansas and Washington have already adopted effective moratoriums. An opinion poll conducted by the Civil Society Institute in October 2007 showed that 75 percent of Americans would support a five-year moratorium on new coal-fired power plants in the United States if there was increased investment in clean, safe renewable energy and improved home energy efficiency standards. Moratoriums have also been recommended in Arkansas and New Jersey and bills have been introduced in Georgia, Utah, Congress and, most recently, Texas.

“Along with Sen. Ellis’ bill, which goes into committee today, I have a companion bill in the House that would put a two year moratorium on the permitting of coal-fired or petroleum-coke fired power plants that do not capture and sequester at least 60 % of the plant’s carbon dioxide,” Vaught said. “Emissions from coal-fired power plants contribute to public health problems and global warming. This legislation would address those problems while increasing demand for renewable energy, coal plants that capture and sequester carbon dioxide, and energy efficiency.”

While environmentalists applaud this legislation, many urge caution that the Legislature does not repeat mistakes from the past. Karen Hadden, director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development (SEED) Coalition, warned: “In 1971 the Texas Legislature allowed most existing plants to continue operating without adding then-current pollution control measures. It took until 2003 to end the ‘grandfathered plant’ loophole. As this moratorium is debated, many will attempt to grandfather plants currently in process. This legislation ought to apply to every plant currently proposed and not just those permitted after bill goes into effect. The fate of the world our children will inherit depends on it.”

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C., with an office in Austin, Texas. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

3 Responses

I am still struggling why these environmental idiots are ok with China putting on a coal fired power plant every week that doesnt have emission control or any program for monitoring & controlling emissions in place – BUT think it is sin for US to use its abundant coal reserves for it’s base power needs (like nearly every other large country in world) when it has both emission controls & heavy EPA monitoring?

Nimby’s at thier best uninformed, technologically ignorant and basing everything on false premise about CO2 which is not a pollutent but major natural element that man has no control over (the 12 active volcanoes + Ocean floor rift emit more emissions than all global industries of man).

Stop struggling, Charles, and accept that why you don’t understand is because you are misrepresenting the views of the people you think are opposed to you.

1- No one supports building more coal in China. BUT, if we fail to cut our CO2 output to meet IPCC standards, China has said they will not under any circumstances cut their emissions. In order for China to stop building coal, we need to first. It’s just that simple.

2- The best thing to do with our coal reserves is sell them overseas and consume as little of it as possible ourselves. Western Powder Basin coal is lower in sulphur, especially over most of the coal in China, and therefore more environmentally friendly. The best ton of coal is the one you don’t burn yourself.

3- You’re kidding yourself if you think we need more coal and nuclear to get baseload power– we have plenty of base, we need more peak. did you not hear the FERC commissioner yesterday say that the US doesn’t need to build a single new power plant in the entire country to meet growth? Instead, we need energy efficiency, renewables, energy storage, and distributed power generation.

4- if you think CO2 isn’t harmful, I suggest you place a plastic bag tightly over your head and breathe deeply for several minutes. If you believe that CO2 is warming the planet and man is only a small contributor to the problem, HOW MUCH MORE SO SHOULD WE REGULATE OUR EMISSIONS? If nature’s trying to push us off a cliff, you push back even harder. Or, if you (more likely) believe CO2 is not warming the planet, I will listen to you and then believe the 95% of climate scientists who disagree with you.